SAVITRI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPER,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH “B” BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1910/PUN/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Savitri Builders and ITO Ward 2, Panvel, Developer, Triferd Tower 3rd Floor, Sai World City, Manhattan Opposite Khanda Colony, Tower 2703, Plaspe Phata Vs. Panvel-410206, Panvel-410206, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN: ADLFS6152R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dinesh Choudhary.AR (Virtual) For Revenue : Ms Bhavya.I.V., Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec250 of the Income Tax Act for the A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer (A.O) has received information that the assesse has entered into JDA with the two plot owners in the F.Y. 2017-18 aggregating to Rs.1,68,51,000/-and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19. The A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and fallowed the due procedure as per Section 148A of the Act, and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act on 07.04.2022, in compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed return of income disclosing a total income of Rs. NIL on 6.05.2022. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on various dates to explain the transactions of JDA and developmental rights and there was no proper compliance. The A.O find that the assessee has paid consideration of Rs.21,80,000/- to plot owners ,whereas the Fair Market Value of plots as per stamp valuation authority is Rs.1,68,51,000/- .The A.O has issued notice u/sec133 (6) of the Act on SRO for the details. Finally, the A.O has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of (i)Rs.21,80,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/sec69C of the Act and (ii) Rs.1,46,71,000/- addition of difference between the Fair market Value and actual consideration applying the provisions of section56(2)(x) of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.1,68,51,000/- and passed the order u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act dated 06.03.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay in filing the appeal as the A.O order was passed on 6.03.2024 and served on assessee on 11.03.2024. Whereas the assessee has filed the appeal on 26.06.2024 and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. CIT(A) further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in-limine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

(ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate cause of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii)There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.”

“ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice—that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note- making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.” 7. We respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore pragmatic approach should have been condoned. Further considered and the delay is considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and explanations. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIALMEMBER) Pune, Dated: 20th August, 2026 Digitally signed by Abhishek Abhishek Mohan Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.08.20 11:31:40 +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीयप्रतितिति,आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. //True Copy// आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण,/ ITAT, Pune. - S.No Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 18.08.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Final Draft placed before author 19.08.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM Second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Sr. PS/PS PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order